Excerpts from a couple speeches that George W. Bush gave in the two months following 9/11, juxtaposed with some of what we've since heard about the 28 pages from former Senator Bob Graham, 9/11 victims' family members and a number of Congressmen.

Presumption of a Cover-Up …

Judges and lawyers know that – if someone intentionally destroys evidence – he’s probably trying to hide his crime. American law has long recognized that destruction of evidence raises a presumption of guilt for the person who destroyed the evidence.

So what does it mean when the US government intentionally destroyed massive amounts of evidence related to 9/11?

September 2015 "Judge Drops Saudi Arabia from 9/11 Suit Due To Lack of Evidence".https://28pages.org/2015/10/01/judge-drops-saudi-arabia-from-911-suit-for-lack-of-evidence/"The United States’s relationship with Saudi Arabia is complex and opaque. Suspicions persist that powerful Saudis funded Al Qaeda and some of the hijackers who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Senator Bob Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee, and cochair of the Joint Congressional inquiry into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, visits to shed light on the 28 pages of the 9/11 report that remain classified. Joining him is former CIA veteran Robert Baer, who was portrayed by George Clooney in the movie Syriana."
Bob Graham interview with hard questions about the role of intelligence agencies: https://soundcloud.com/newacademic/graham-interview

The strongest evidence linking the alleged hijackers to 9/11 was a video said to be from the closed circuit TV (CCTV) system at Dulles International Airport in Washington DC. The video was not made available until the day before the 9/11 Commission Report was released, in 2004, and it helped to pave the way for widespread acceptance of the official account. Since the other evidence against the accused hijackers was dubious and suspiciously convenient for the FBI, which provided it, the Dulles video should be examined closely.

Doing so has led some independent 9/11 investigators to conclude that the Dulles video contains “no information to link its images to AA 77.” Reasons include that:

None of the Dulles airport staff remembered seeing the alleged hijackers at the airport

Dulles had over 300 cameras but no footage was released except for portions of this one video (and no video was available from the other airports)

The alleged Dulles video contains no date, time stamp, or camera identification

The video was shot at a rate of 30 frames per second (fps), which the investigators said is not typical of CCTV videos

The video appears to be an edited composite of shots taken from different angles

Additionally, it has been noticed that the airport screeners in the Dulles video did not perform their duties according to airport requirements. An attorney representing 9/11 victims’ families stated that security agents in the video screened the suspects in ways that were not like those required in Dulles training videos.

For this important interview we welcome Tony Szamboti, mechanical engineer and 9/11 researcher, who joins us for a detailed discussion on crucial evidence that, in the words of his research group, "clearly demonstrate(s) that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent."

With the group's white paper as our focus, "Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports" which lists 25 Points seriously challenging NIST's work in this area, we discuss striking new evidence demonstrating that NIST intentionally omitted significant structural components from its analysis of Building 7, and explore the almost inescapable conclusion that this was done in order to avoid the explanation of controlled demolition. We also discuss the potential these findings might have for legal action.

Washington (CNN) — A former member of the 9/11 Commission called Tuesday for the public release of 28 classified pages pertaining to the attacks.

"I am strongly in favor of declassifying this information as quickly as possible," Tim Roemer told a House committee. "The 9/11 families deserve it, the American people deserve it, and justice deserves it. We have the right to transparency and sunlight -- not the darkness."

The hearing, titled "The U.S.-Saudi Arabia Counterterrorism Relationship," comes amid increasing scrutiny in Washington about Saudi Arabia's possible role in the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and a push in Congress to allow victims of terrorism to sue foreign governments linked to terror attacks on U.S. soil.

That has fueled calls for the release of 28 classified pages on the report into the attacks. The pages indicate that a network of Saudis, some in official positions, supported al Qaeda operatives in the run up to the attacks, according to some of those who have seen the documents and are pushing for their release, including former Navy Secretary John Lehman and former Senator Bob Graham.

At Tuesday's hearing, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle criticized the Saudi Arabian government for funding the spread of Wahabi Islam, a fundamentalist interpretation of the ancient religion that "teaches that apostates should be persecuted and in some cases killed," said Texas Rep. Ted Poe, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on terrorism.

Poe noted that some analysts say that followers of Wahabi Islam might be more disposed to feel sympathetic to terrorist groups. And he echoed Roemer's call.

~The Senate passed legislation Tuesday that would allow families of September 11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia
~The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act had triggered a threat from Riyadh to pull billions of dollars from the U.S. economy
~Now it has been revealed loophole was inserted to reduce bill's power
~Senate Democrats had firmly supported the legislation, putting them at odds with the Obama administration

The Senate's unanimous passing of legislation that allows families of September 11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia may not be as groundbreaking as it was first believed.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) was initially reported as being a chance for the families to pursue damages from the Saudi government but now it has emerged a clause was inserted to water down the bill's power.

The wording of the loophole states the Secretary of State just has to engage 'in good-faith discussions with the foreign-state defendant concerning the resolution of claims against the foreign state,' according to the NY Post.

It had been feared the legislation would trigger potential diplomatic issues with Riyadh, which was threatening to pull billions of dollars from the U.S. economy, if the bill is enacted.

The National Archives released a series of memos written by Sept. 11 Commission staff members, a compilation of numerous possible connections between the hijackers and Saudis inside the United States. The document appears to be a glimpse into what is still contained in the classified 28 pages of the congressional inquiry into the 2001 attacks.